Kim 5/8/16 Kim 5/8/16

Tell Your Beneficiaries About Your Accounts and Policies

Let them know how they will receive retirement assets and insurance benefits.

Will your heirs receive a fair share of your wealth? Will your invested assets go where you want them to when you die?

If you have a proper will or estate plan in place, you will likely answer “yes” to both of those questions. The beneficiary forms you filled out years ago for your IRA, your workplace retirement plan, and your life insurance policy may give you even more confidence about the eventual transfer of your wealth.

One concern still remains, though. You have to tell your heirs that these documents exist.

That does not mean sharing all the details. If you have decided that some of your heirs will one day get more of your wealth than others, you can keep quiet about that decision as long as you live. You do want to tell your heirs the essential details; they should know that you have a will and/or an estate plan, and they should understand that you have named beneficiaries for your retirement accounts, your investment accounts, and your insurance policies.

Over time, you must review your beneficiary decisions. In fact, you may want to revisit them. As an example, say you opened an IRA in 1997. Your life has probably changed quite a bit since 1997. Were you single then, and are you married now? Were you married then, and are you single now? Have you become a parent since then? If you can answer “yes” to any of those three questions, then you need to look at that IRA beneficiary form now. Your choices may need to change.

Here is a quick look at how beneficiary decisions play out for a few of the most popular retirement accounts.

Employer-sponsored retirement plans. These are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which rules that if the late accountholder was married, the surviving spouse is entitled to at least 50% of the account assets. That applies even if another person has been designated as the primary beneficiary. In such a case, the spouse and the primary beneficiary may split the assets 50/50. (The spouse can actually waive his or her right to that 50% of the invested assets through a Spousal Waiver form. A spouse usually has to be older than 35 for this to be allowed.) These rules also apply for other types of ERISA-governed retirement assets, such as pension plan accounts and corporate-owned life insurance.^1,2

The Supreme Court has decided that these rules take priority over state laws (Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 2001; Hillman v. Maretta, 2013) and divorce agreements (Kennedy Estate v. Plan Administrator for the DuPont Saving and Investment Plan, 2008).^3,4

If a participant in one of these retirement accounts remarries, the new husband or wife is entitled to 50% of those assets at death. While a plan participant may name a child as the beneficiary of a retirement account after a divorce, remarriage will leave only 50% of those assets with that child when the accountholder dies, rather than 100%, unless the new spouse waives his or her right to receiving 50% of the assets. The new spouse will be in line to receive that 50% of the account even if unnamed on the beneficiary form.¹

IRAs. Unlike an employer-sponsored retirement plan, a spouse does not have automatic beneficiary rights with an IRA. That is because IRAs are governed under state laws rather than ERISA. One interesting estate planning aspect of an IRA rollover is that the owner of the new IRA has the freedom to name anyone as the primary beneficiary.¹

Life insurance policies. The death proceeds go to the named beneficiary; occasionally, a beneficiary may not know a policy exists.

Recently, 60 Minutes did an expose on the insurance industry. Major insurers had withheld more than $7.5 billion in life insurance death proceeds from beneficiaries. They had a contractual reason for doing so: the beneficiaries had never stepped forward to file claims.⁵

While many of the policies involved were valued at $10,000 or less, others were worth over $1 million. The deceased policyholders had either failed to tell their heirs about the policies or misplaced the copies and the paperwork. Their heirs did not know (or know how) to claim the money. As a result, the insurance proceeds lay unclaimed for years, and the insurers only now feel pressure to pay out the benefits.⁵

Update your beneficiaries; let your heirs know how vital these forms are. Make sure that your beneficiary decisions on retirement, brokerage and bank accounts, college savings plans, and life insurance policies suit your wealth transfer objectives.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600. This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Disclosure

Citations.

1 - 401khelpcenter.com/401k_education/connor_beneficiary_designations.html [4/21/16]

2 - nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/claim-payable-on-death-assets-32436.html [4/21/16]

3 - marketwatch.com/story/check-your-beneficiary-designations-now-2013-09-17/ [9/17/13]

4 - forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/06/03/supreme-court-favors-ex-wife-over-widow-in-battle-for-life-insurance-proceeds/ [6/3/13]

5 - cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-life-insurance-investigation-lesley-stahl/ [4/17/16]

Kim 2/11/16 Kim 2/11/16

White House Proposes Changes to Retirement Plans

A look at some of the ideas contained in the 2017 federal budget.

Will workplace retirement plans be altered in the near future? The White House will propose some changes to these plans in the 2017 federal budget, with the goal of making such programs more accessible. Here are some of the envisioned changes.

Pooled employer-sponsored retirement programs. This concept could save small businesses money. Current laws permit multi-employer retirement plans, but the companies involved must be similar in nature. The White House wants to lift that restriction.^1,2

In theory, allowing businesses across disparate industries to join pooled retirement plans could result in significant savings. Administrative expenses could be reduced, as well as the costs of compliance.

Would governmental and non-profit workplaces also be allowed to pool their retirement plans under the proposal? There is no word about that at this point.

This pooled retirement plan concept would offer employees new degrees of portability for their savings. A worker leaving a job at a participating firm in the pool would be able to retain his or her retirement account after taking a job with another of the participating firms. Along these lines, the White House will also propose new ways to make it easier for workers to monitor and reconcile multiple workplace retirement accounts.^2,3

Scant details have emerged about how these pooled plans would be created or governed, or how much implementing them would cost taxpayers. Congress will be asked for $100 million in the new budget draft to test new and more portable forms of retirement savings accounts. Presumably, many more details will surface when the proposed federal budget becomes public in February.^2,3

Automatic enrollment in IRAs. In the new federal budget draft, the Obama administration will require businesses with more than 10 employees and no retirement savings program to enroll their workers in IRAs. This idea has been included in past federal budget drafts, but it has yet to survive bipartisan negotiations – and it may not this time. Recently, the myRA retirement account was created through executive action to try and promote this objective.^1,3

A lower bar to retirement plan participation for part-time employees. Another proposal within the new budget would allow anyone who has worked for an employer for more than 500 hours a year for the past three years to participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan.²

A bigger tax break for businesses starting retirement plans. Eligible employers can receive a federal tax credit for inaugurating a retirement plan – a credit for 50% of what the IRS deems the employer’s “ordinary and necessary eligible startup costs,” up to a maximum of $500. That credit (which is part of the general business credit) may be claimed for each of the first three years that the plan is in place, and a business may even elect to begin claiming it in the tax year preceding the tax year that the plan goes into effect. The White House wants the IRS to boost this annual credit from $500 to $1,500.^2,4

Also, businesses could receive an annual federal tax credit of up to $500 merely for automatically enrolling workers in their retirement plans. As per the above credit, they could claim this for three straight years.²

What are the odds of these proposals making it into the final 2017 federal budget? The odds may be long. Through the decades, federal budget drafts have often contained “blue sky” visions characteristic of this or that presidency, ideas that are eventually compromised or jettisoned. That may be the case here. If the above concepts do become law, they may change the face of retirement plan participation and administration.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600. This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 - nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/obama-to-urge-easing-401-k-rules-for-small-businesses.html [1/26/16]

2 - tinyurl.com/je5uj3r [1/26/16]

3 - bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-26/obama-seeks-to-expand-401-k-use-by-letting-employers-pool-plans [1/26/16]

4 - irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-Startup-Costs-Tax-Credit [8/18/15]

Kim 6/23/15 Kim 6/23/15

You Could Retire...But Should You?

It might be better to wait a bit longer.

Some people retire at first opportunity, only to wish they had waited longer. Thanks to Wall Street’s long bull run, many pre-retirees have seen their savings fully recover from the shock of the 2007-09 bear market to the point where they appear to have reached the “magic number.” You may be one of them – but just because you can retire does not necessarily mean that you should.

Retiring earlier may increase longevity risk. In shorthand, this is the chance of “outliving your money.” Bear markets, sudden medical expenses, savings shortfalls, and immoderate withdrawals from retirement accounts can all contribute to it. The downside of retiring at 55 or 60 is that you have that many more years of retirement to fund.

Staying employed longer means fewer years of depending on your assets and greater monthly Social Security income. A retiree who claims Social Security benefits at age 70 will receive monthly payments 76% greater than a retiree who claims them at age 62.¹

There are also insurance issues to consider. If you trade the office for the golf course at age 60 or 62, do you really want to pay for a few years of private health insurance? Can you easily find such a policy? Medicare will not cover you until you turn 65; in the event of an illness, how would your finances hold up without its availability? While your employer may give you a year-and-a-half of COBRA coverage upon your exit, that could cost your household more than $1,000 a month.^1,2

How is your cash position? If your early retirement happens to coincide with a severe market downturn or a business or health crisis, you will need an emergency fund – or at the very least enough liquidity to quickly address such issues.

Does your spouse want to retire later? If so, your desire to retire early might cause some conflicts and impact any shared retirement dreams you hold. If you have older children or other relatives living with you, how would your decision affect them?

Working a little longer might be good for your mind & body. Some retirees end up missing the intellectual demands of the workplace and the socialization with friends and co-workers. They find no ready equivalent once they end their careers.

Staying employed longer might also help baby boomers ward off some significant health risks. Worldwide, suicide rates are highest for those 70 and older according to the World Health Organization. Additionally, INSERM (France’s national health agency) tracked 429,000 retirees and pre-retirees for several years and concluded that those who left the workforce at age 60 were at 15% greater risk of developing dementia than those who stopped working at 65.³

It seems that the more affluent you are, the more likely you are to keep working. Last year, Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch and Age Wave surveyed wealthy retirees and found that 29% of respondents with more than $5 million in invested assets were still working. That held true for 33% of respondents with invested assets in the $1-5 million range. Most of these millionaires said they were working by choice, and about half were working in new careers.¹

Ideally, you retire with adequate savings and a plan to stay physically and mentally active and socially engaged. Waiting a bit longer to retire might be good for your wealth and health.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600.

This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 - tinyurl.com/o8lf6z2 [8/1/14]

2 - money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2015/02/05/6-reasons-you-shouldnt-retire-early [2/5/15]

3 - newsweek.com/2015/03/20/retiring-too-early-can-kill-you-312092.html [3/20/15]

Kim 6/8/15 Kim 6/8/15

Are Your Kids Delaying Your Retirement?

Some baby boomers are supporting their “boomerang” children Are you providing some financial support to your adult children? Has that hurt your retirement prospects?

It seems that the wealthier you are, the greater your chances of lending a helping hand to your kids. Pew Research Center data compiled in late 2014 revealed that 38% of American parents had given financial assistance to their grown children in the past 12 months, including 73% of higher-income parents.¹

The latest Bank of America/USA Today Better Money Habits Millennial Report shows that 22% of 30- to 34-year-olds get financial help from their moms and dads. Twenty percent of married or cohabiting millennials receive such help as well.²

Do these households feel burdened? According to the Pew survey, no: 89% of parents who had helped their grown children financially said it was emotionally rewarding to do so. Just 30% said it was stressful.¹

Other surveys paint a different picture. Earlier this year, the financial research firm Hearts & Wallets presented a poll of 5,500 U.S. households headed by baby boomers. The major finding: boomers who were not supporting their adult children were nearly 2½ times more likely to be fully retired than their peers (52% versus 21%).³

In TD Ameritrade’s 2015 Financial Disruptions Survey, 66% of Americans said their long-term saving and retirement plans had been disrupted by external circumstances; 24% cited “supporting others” as the reason. In addition, the Hearts & Wallets researchers told MarketWatch that boomers who lent financial assistance to their grown children were 25% more likely to report “heightened financial anxiety” than other boomers; 52% were ill at ease about assuming investment risk.^3,4

Economic factors pressure young adults to turn to the bank of Mom & Dad. Thirty or forty years ago, it was entirely possible in many areas of the U.S. for a young couple to buy a home, raise a couple of kids and save 5-10% percent of their incomes. For millennials, that is sheer fantasy. In fact, the savings rate for Americans younger than 35 now stands at -1.8%.⁵

Housing costs are impossibly high; so are tuition costs. The jobs they accept frequently pay too little and lack the kind of employee benefits preceding generations could count on. The Bank of America/USA Today survey found that 20% of millennials carrying education debt had put off starting a family because of it; 20% had taken jobs for which they were overqualified. The average monthly student loan payment for a millennial was $201.²

Since 2007, the inflation-adjusted median wage for Americans aged 25-34 has declined in nearly every major industry (health care being the exception). Wage growth for younger workers is 60% of what it is for older workers. The real shocker, according to Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco data: while overall U.S. wages rose 15% between 2007-14, wages for entry-level business and finance jobs only rose 2.6% in that period.^5,6

It is wonderful to help, but not if it hurts your retirement. When a couple in their fifties or sixties assumes additional household expenses, the risk to their retirement savings increases. Additionally, their retirement vision risks being amended and compromised.

The bottom line is that a couple should not offer long-run financial help. That will not do a young college graduate any favors. Setting expectations is only reasonable: establishing a deadline when the support ends is another step toward instilling financial responsibility in your son or daughter. A contract, a rental agreement, an encouragement to find a place with a good friend – these are not harsh measures, just rational ones.

With no ground rules and the bank of Mom and Dad providing financial assistance without end, a “boomerang” son or daughter may stay in the bedroom or basement for years and a boomer couple may end up retiring years later than they previously imagined. Putting a foot down is not mean – younger and older adults face economic challenges alike, and couples in their fifties and sixties need to stand up for their retirement dreams.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600.

Citations.

1 - pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/21/5-helping-adult-children/ [5/21/15]

2 - newsroom.bankofamerica.com/press-releases/consumer-banking/parents-great-recession-influence-millennial-money-views-and-habits/ [4/21/15]

3 - marketwatch.com/story/are-your-kids-ruining-your-retirement-2015-05-05 [5/5/15]

4 - amtd.com/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-details/2015/Financial-Disruptions-Cost-Americans-25-Trillion-in-Lost-Retirement-Savings/default.aspx [2/17/15]

5 - theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/millennials-arent-saving-money-because-theyre-not-making-money/383338/ [12/3/14]

6 - theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/millennial-entry-level-wages-terrible-horrible-just-really-bad/374884/ [7/23/14]

Kim 4/29/15 Kim 4/29/15

The Difference Between Good & Bad Debt

Some debts are worth assuming, but others exert a drag on retirement saving. Who will retire with substantial debt? It seems many baby boomers will – too many. In a 2014 Employee Benefit Research Institute survey, 44% of boomers reported that they were concerned about the size of their household debt. While many are carrying mortgages, paying with plastic also exerts a drag on their finances. According to credit reporting agency Experian, boomers are the generation holding the most credit cards (an average of 2.66 per person) and the biggest average per-person credit card balance ($5,347).^1,2

Indebtedness plagues all generations – and that is why the distinction between good debt and bad debt should be recognized.

What distinguishes a good debt from a bad one? A good debt is purposeful – the borrower assumes it in pursuit of an important life or financial objective, such as homeownership or a college degree. A good debt also gives a borrower long-term potential to make money exceeding the money borrowed. Good debts commonly have both of these characteristics.

In contrast, bad debts are taken on for comparatively trivial reasons, and are usually arranged through credit cards that may charge the borrower double-digit interest (not a small factor in the $5,347 average credit card balance cited above).

Some people break it down further. Thomas Anderson – an executive director of wealth management at Morgan Stanley and the author of the best-selling The Value of Debt in Retirement – identifies three kinds of indebtedness. Oppressive debt is debt at 10% or greater interest, a payday loan being a classic example. Working debt comes with much less interest and may be tax-deductible (think mortgage payments), so it may be worth carrying.³

Taking a page from corporate finance, Anderson also introduces the concept of enriching debt –strategic debt assumed with the certainty than it can be erased at any time. In the enriching debt model, an individual “captures the spread” – he or she borrows from an investment portfolio to pay off student loans, or pays little or nothing down on a home and invests the lump sum saved into equity investments whose rate of return may exceed the mortgage interest. This is not exactly a mainstream approach, but Anderson has argued that it is a wise one, telling the Washington Post that “the second you pay down your house, it’s a one-way liquidity trap, especially for retirees.”^3,4

Mortgage debt is the largest debt for most new retirees. According to the American College, the average new retiree carries $100,000 in home loan debt. That certainly amounts to good debt for most people.³

Student loans usually amount to good debt, but not necessarily for the increasing numbers of retiring baby boomers who carry them. Education loans have become the second-largest debt for this demographic, and in some cases retirees are paying off loans taken out for their children or grandchildren.³

Credit card and auto loan debt also factor into the picture. Some contend that an auto loan is actually a good debt because borrower has purchased a durable good, but the interest rates and minimal odds of appreciation for cars and trucks suggest otherwise.

Some households lack budgets. In others, the budget is reliant on everything is going well. Either case opens a door for the accumulation of bad debts.

The fifties are crucial years for debt management. The years from 50-59 may represent the peak earning years for an individual, yet they may also bring peak indebtedness with money going out for everything from mortgage payments to eldercare to child support. As many baby boomers will retire with debt, the reality is that their retirement income will need to be large enough to cover those obligations.

How much debt are you carrying today? Whether you want to retire debt-free or live with some debt after you sell your business or end your career, you need to maintain the financial capacity to address it and/or eradicate it. Speak with a financial professional about your options.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600.

Citations.

1 - foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2015/03/26/strategic-debt-can-help-in-retirement/ [3/26/15]

2 - gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/19-easy-ways-baby-boomers-can-build-credit/ [4/23/15]

3 - usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/brooks/2015/04/22/retirement-401k-debt-mortgage/25837369/ [4/22/15]

4 - washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/03/26/the-case-for-not-paying-off-your-mortgage-by-retirement/ [3/26/15]

Kim 4/20/15 Kim 4/20/15

Are You Underprepared for Retirement?

A university study serves as a wake-up call. Financially speaking, how many Americans are truly on track to retire? A recently published white paper suggests that about half of us are approaching our “third acts” with faulty assumptions.

Perception differs from reality. Researchers from the University of Alabama and Ohio State University looked at the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances and assessed the retirement readiness of its 2,300-odd respondents. They determined that 58% of these workers (age 35-60) were saving too little for the future, with a near-majority of that 58% failing to recognize the gravity of their situation. Only 42% of households were sufficiently prepared for retirement, but 46% of households believed they were.^1,2

The researchers discovered two other interesting disconnects. One, a slight majority of those who were saving adequately for retirement believed they were not saving enough. Two, the insufficiently prepared workers who were in line to receive old-school pensions were more likely to have flawed assumptions about their retirement readiness than workers without future pensions.¹

Just how much money do you really need for retirement? The answer to that question varies per household, but many households could stand to save more. One old rule of thumb says you should save the equivalent of 12 times your end salary for a comfortable retirement. If you retire earning $150,000 a year, that means $1.8 million.³

Very few IRAs or workplace retirement plan accounts contain that much – so if your retirement nest egg needs to be that large, other sources of funding for your retirement probably need to emerge.

A household with either or both spouses earning $150,000 may have those resources. A middle class household may need to dedicate 10% or more of its income to retirement savings accounts.

Saving 5% of your salary for retirement probably means saving too little. Take the case of someone who starts saving for retirement at age 30 while earning $40,000. Hypothetically, assume that this person gets a 3.8% raise annually (which may be optimistic) and gets a consistent 6% yield from his or her retirement accounts (this is a hypothetical example). What if this person works until full retirement age (67)? In 2052, 37 years from now, this worker will have, under these conditions, a retirement nest egg of $423,754. Not bad, but not fantastic.³

Another old rule of thumb says living comfortably in retirement requires 85% of your end salary. A nest egg of $423,754 is clearly too small to provide that for most of us, even with income withdrawn from it supplemented by Social Security payments.³

If you save and invest ably over 30 or 40 years, you might end up a millionaire with the help of strong yields and compounding. You may need to be a millionaire to retire.

What if interruptions mar your retirement savings effort? They may mar it, but they should never halt it. Divorce, medical issues, prolonged joblessness – these and other events may impede your progress toward your savings goals, but the effort to save must still be made as you want time on your side.

If you are able to anticipate such an interruption, there are ways to plan to possibly make up the slack. You could explore investing more aggressively during that time period – but you invite greater market risk. You could cut back on household expenses (or inessential expenses) to free up more money to sustain your pace of retirement saving. Or, you could determine potential strategies far ahead of such disruptions by sitting down with a financial professional to run some scenarios (laid off at 60, taking three years out of the workforce at age 35 or 40 to be a stay-at-home mom or dad, and so forth).

You should strive to be financially prepared for your retirement, and for the unexpected life events or financial surprises that may occur before it arrives.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600.

Citations.

1 - time.com/money/3764455/retirement-readiness/ [4/1/15]

2 - plansponsor.com/Who-Has-a-Realistic-View-of-Retirement-Readiness/ [2/20/15]

3 - investopedia.com/articles/professionals/011215/retirement-savings-how-much-enough.asp [1/12/15]

Kim 3/23/15 Kim 3/23/15

Reining in Your Debt

Americans are spending freely again. That has a downside.

As the Great Recession faded, American household debt gradually decreased. In fact, it declined by $1 trillion between mid-2008 and mid-2014, according to the Federal Reserve.¹

Now household debt is increasing once more. The Fed found it climbing by $78 billion (0.7%) during Q3 2014.¹

On the macroeconomic level, that can be interpreted as a positive: it hints at greater consumer spending, easier credit, and more lending taking place to accommodate consumer borrowers. On a microeconomic level, it is more troublesome. It may mean a change in perception, with debt not seeming as onerous as it once did.

If households really are looking at debt through rosier-colored glasses, they might do well to remember an inescapable fact. When they use a credit card or take out a consumer loan, they are borrowing money they do not have for things they do not absolutely need. The average indebted U.S. household was carrying $15,611 in credit card debt alone in December, the Fed notes. Even if Mom or Dad is a business owner or self-employed entrepreneur, that is an awful lot of revolving debt for a couple or family.²

There are only two ways to reduce debt. One is spending less, the other paying it down. The first tactic requires a change in habits; the second usually requires more income.

How about not buying 20% of what you want? Or alternately, paying for everything in cash? Either strategy might reduce your household debt significantly in a given month.

Where can you find more income? Life may allow you to take on an additional, part-time job – or a higher-paying one. Most people do not have either option at their disposal, so they must look for additional short-term or recurring income derived from consumer savings: they stop eating out or drinking lattes, they stop subscribing to cable or keeping up health club memberships they seldom use, they elect not to buy any clothing for a few months, vacation locally or drive the same car for a decade. All that can put more money in a family’s pockets.

Most households lack budgets. Rather than being old-fashioned or bothersome, they are instrumental in determining spending patterns and opportunities for savings. What is mysterious about your personal finances can clear up with a budget, and you get the sense of being on top of your financial life.

Debt can be managed. When you look at your spending habits, ideas to reduce it, control it and defeat it will surface.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600.

Citations.

1 - news.investors.com/investing-personal-finance/010215-732937-cut-debt-and-manage-household-spending-and-budget-in-2015.htm [1/2/15]

2 - nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/average-credit-card-debt-household/ [3/19/15]

Kim 3/10/15 Kim 3/10/15

Will Baby Boomers Ever Truly Retire?

Many may keep working out of interest rather than need. Baby boomers realize that their retirements may not unfold like those of their parents. New survey data from The Pew Charitable Trusts highlights how perceptions of retirement have changed for this generation. A majority of boomers expect to work in their sixties and seventies, and that expectation may reflect their desire for engagement rather than any economic desperation.

Instead of an “endless Saturday,” the future may include some 8-to-5. Pew asked heads of 7,000 U.S. households how they envisioned retirement and also added survey responses from focus groups in Phoenix, Orlando and Boston. Just 26% of respondents felt their retirements would be work-free. A slight majority (53%) told Pew they would probably work in some context in the next act of their lives, possibly at a different type of job; 21% said they had no intention to retire at all.¹

Working longer may help boomers settle debts. A study published by the Employee Benefit Research Institute in January (Debt of the Elderly and Near Elderly, 1992-2013) shows a 2.0% increase in the percentage of indebted households in the U.S. headed by breadwinners 55 and older from 2010-13 (reaching 65.4% at the end of that period). EBRI says median indebtedness for such households hit $47,900 in 2013 compared to $17,879 in 1992. It notes that larger mortgage balances have been a major factor in this.¹

Debts aside, some people just like to work. Those presently on the job expect to stay in the workforce longer than their parents did. Additional EBRI data affirms this – last year, 33% of U.S. workers believed that they would leave their careers after age 65. That compares to just 11% in 1991.²

How many boomers will manage to work past 65? This is one of the major unknowns in retirement planning today. We are watching a reasonably healthy generation age into seniority, one that can access more knowledge about being healthy than ever before – yet obesity rates have climbed even as advances have been made in treating so many illnesses.

Working past 65 probably means easing into part-time work – and not every employer permits such transitions for full-time employees. The federal government now has a training program in which FTEs can make such a transition while training new workers and some larger companies do allow phased retirements, but this is not exactly the norm.³

Working less than a 40-hour week may also negatively impact a worker’s retirement account and employer-sponsored health care coverage. EBRI finds that only about a third of small firms let part-time employees stay on their health plans; even fewer than half of large employers (200 or more workers) do. The Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies says part-time workers get to participate in 401(k) plans at only half of the companies that sponsor them.³

Boomers who work after 65 have to keep an eye on Medicare and Social Security. They will qualify for Medicare Part A (hospital coverage) at 65, but they should sign up for Part B (doctor visits) within the appropriate enrollment window and either a Part C plan or Medigap coverage plus Medicare Part D.³

Believe it or not, company size also influences when Medicare coverage starts for some 65-year-olds. Medicare will become the primary insurance for employees at firms with less than 20 workers when they turn 65, even if that company sponsors a health plan. At firms with 20 or more workers, the workplace health plan takes precedence over Medicare coverage, with 65-year-olds maintaining their eligibility for that employer-sponsored health coverage provided they work sufficient hours. Boomers who work for these larger employers may sign up for Part A and then enroll in Part B and optionally a Part C plan or Part D with Medigap coverage within eight months of retiring – they do not have to wait for the next open enrollment period.³

Prior to age 66, federal retirement benefits may be lessened if retirement income tops certain limits. In 2015, if you are 62-65 and receive Social Security, $1 of your benefits will be withheld for every $2 that you earn above $15,720. If you receive Social Security and turn 66, this year, then $1 of your benefits will be withheld for every $3 that you earn above $41,880.⁴

Social Security income may also be taxed above the program’s “combined income” threshold. (“Combined income” is defined as adjusted gross income + non-taxable interest + 50% of Social Security benefits.) Single filers with combined incomes from $25,000-34,000 may have to pay federal income tax on up to 50% of their Social Security benefits in 2015, and that also applies to joint filers with combined incomes of $32,000-44,000. Single filers with combined incomes above $34,000 and joint filers whose combined incomes top $44,000 may have to pay federal income tax on up to 85% of their Social Security benefits.⁵

Are boomers really the retiring type? Given the amazing accomplishments and vitality of the baby boom generation, a wave of boomers working past 65 seems more like a probability than a possibility. Life is still exciting; there is so much more to be done.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600.

Citations.

1 - marketwatch.com/story/only-one-quarter-of-americans-plan-to-retire-2015-02-26 [2/26/15]

2 - usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/brooks/2015/02/17/baby-boomer-retire/23168003/ [2/17/15]

3 - tinyurl.com/qdm5ddq [3/4/15]

4 - forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2014/10/22/social-security-benefits-rising-1-7-for-2015-top-tax-up-just-1-3/ [10/22/14]

5 - ssa.gov/planners/taxes.htm [3/4/15]

Kim 3/3/15 Kim 3/3/15

Are Americans Growing More Optimistic About Retiring?

Pragmatism seems to be replacing pessimism, at least.

Is it okay to retire today? Many baby boomers shelved notions of retiring during the past few years. Layoffs, the decline in home values, the crushing bear market of 2007-09 – those memories were just too fresh, and their economic effects were still being felt by many households.

In 2015, boomers seem a bit less hesitant to begin their “third acts.” In this year’s CareerBuilder retirement survey, 53% of workers older than 60 indicated they are postponing their retirements. That may not seem a statistic worth celebrating, but five years ago 66% of respondents to the survey said they were putting off leaving work.¹

Retirement may not mean a “clean break” from the workplace: 54% of this age group told CareerBuilder that they would try to work at least part-time when retired. In fact, nearly one in five said they planned to continue working 40 hours a week or more. These boomers cited two compelling reasons to keep a foot in the office: household financial pressures and the employer-sponsored health insurance they could count on between ages 60 and 65.¹

Two other recent polls echo the findings of the CareerBuilder survey. Last year’s United States of Aging survey (a joint project of the National Council on Aging, USA TODAY, United Healthcare and the National Association for Area Agencies on Aging) found 89% of respondents 60 and older certain that they could enjoy and sustain their quality of life as seniors. While 49% worried that they might outlive their money, this was down from 53% in the 2013 survey.²

Ameriprise Financial recently released the findings from its poll of 1,000 retirees aged 60-73; the respondents had retired within the past five years and possessed $100,000 or more in investable assets. Generally, they were happy about retiring: 76% reported feeling “in control” of their choice to leave work, and 75% indicated they were “very satisfied” with retirement life. For a slight majority of respondents, the transition was reasonable: 53% said they had been healthy enough to retire, and 52% said they were emotionally ready when they made the move.³

How many of them had retired by choice? An encouraging 51%; just 15% said they retired as a result of job loss, downsizing or buyouts.³

Remember, retirement may start unexpectedly. No one is invincible, and as the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) discovered in a 2014 study, health or disability reasons prompt 61% of retirements. Workforce downsizing and eldercare responsibilities were the two other most-cited motivators, but only 18% of respondents cited either of those factors. In surveying 1,500 retirees last year, EBRI also learned that 49% had exited their careers earlier than they had anticipated – in fact, 35% of them had retired prior to age 60. An unexpected retirement may also upend some household financial assumptions – turning to the Ameriprise study, we see that while 28% of those respondents reported spending less in retirement than they thought they would, 22% are spending more than they expected.^3,4

If you were to retire two years from now, would you be ready for that transition? Would you hold up financially if events forced you to retire today? If you are within ten years of your envisioned retirement date, it might be prudent to revisit your savings strategy and retirement plan to double-check your retirement readiness.

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 - nbcnews.com/business/careers/could-2015-be-year-retirement-party-n308871 [2/19/15]

2 - usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/15/aging-survey-research/11921043/ [7/15/14]

3 - benefitspro.com/2015/02/03/retired-boomers-in-control-happy [2/3/15]

4 - tinyurl.com/qc67lyd [2/10/15]

Kim 8/25/14 Kim 8/25/14

Less Protection for Inherited IRAs

They are no longer exempt from creditors & bankruptcy proceedings. A SCOTUS ruling raises eyebrows. On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that assets held within inherited IRAs by non-spousal beneficiaries do not legally constitute “retirement funds.” Therefore, those assets are not protected from creditors under federal bankruptcy statutes.^1,2

This opinion may have you scratching your head. “IRA” stands for Individual Retirement Arrangement, right? So how could IRA assets fail to qualify as retirement assets?

Here is the background behind the decision. In 2010, a Wisconsin resident named Heidi Heffron-Clark filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In doing so, she listed an inherited IRA with a balance of around $300,000 as an exempt asset. No doubt this seemed reasonable: the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act provided a cumulative $1 million inflation-adjusted bankruptcy exemption for both traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs in 2005.³

So under BAPCPA, wasn’t that $300K in inherited IRA funds held by Ms. Heffron-Clark creditor-protected? Her creditors, the bankruptcy trustee and the Wisconsin bankruptcy court all thought not. That wasn’t surprising, as bankruptcy trustees have issued numerous challenges to the exemption status of inherited IRAs since BAPCPA’s passing.³

Clark v. Rameker made it all the way to the country’s highest court, and boiled down to one question: is an inherited IRA a retirement account, or not?

The Supreme Court rejected the idea that a retirement account for one individual automatically becomes a retirement account for the individual who inherits it. It made that stand based on three features of inherited IRAs:

** The beneficiary of an inherited IRA can draw down all of the IRA balance at any time and use the money for anything without any penalty. Compare that to the original IRA owner, who will face penalties for (most) IRA distributions taken before age 59½.

** Typically, beneficiaries of inherited IRAs must start to take required minimum distributions (RMDs) in the year after they inherit the IRA; it doesn’t matter how old they are when that happens. They could be 68 years old, they could be 8 years old – age doesn’t factor into the RMD rules.

** Unlike the original IRA owner, the beneficiary of an inherited IRA can’t contribute to that account – another strike against the contextualization of an inherited IRA as a retirement fund.³

All this gave the high court a basis for its decision.

Do IRA funds that pass to surviving spouses remain creditor-protected? It would seem so. Frustratingly, the Supreme Court didn’t tackle that question in its ruling. IRAs inherited from spouses are still presumably exempt from federal bankruptcy laws, and if a surviving spouse rolls over inherited IRA assets into an IRA of his or her own, the resulting enlarged IRA is presumably still defined as a retirement account.Oral arguments heard in Clark v. Rameker may help to reinforce this view; the bankruptcy trustee’s lawyer emphasized the differences between Ms. Heffron-Clark’s inherited IRA and one inherited from a decedent.³

State laws may save some inherited IRA assets. If a non-spousal beneficiary inherits an IRA and lives inAlaska, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio or Texas, state law is on his or her side. In those states, bankruptcy exemption statutes shelter inherited IRAs.²

What if the heir lives elsewhere?That could pose a problem.If an IRA owner fails to play defense, the IRA assets could one day be at risk if a non-spousal beneficiary inherits them.

Designating a trust as the IRA beneficiary isn’t the only option here, but it certainly has merit. The hitch is that putting an IRA into a trust is rather involved. Trusts also come with fees, paperwork and complexity, and the non-spousal beneficiary of the IRA assets should have some financial literacy.¹

In the case of a traditional IRA, a Roth conversion might be an option worth examining. (The conversion would have to happen during the original owner’s lifetime.) Another option: some of the IRA balance could be spent on life insurance which could be left to a trust; life some of the IRA balance could be spent on life insurance which could be left to a trust; life insurance proceeds are tax-free, and a life insurance policy is much more suited to inclusion in a trust than a traditional or Roth IRA.²

The bottom line?If you fear that the heir(s) to your IRA might face bankruptcy proceedings someday, talk with a financial or legal professional about your options. If state law won’t protect those assets, a trust might be wise.

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

1 - blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2014/06/12/scotus-inherited-iras-not-retirement-accounts/ [6/12/14]

2 - tinyurl.com/n9g4acw [7/13/14]

3 - theslottreport.com/2014/06/supreme-court-inherited-iras-are-not.html [6/18/14]

Kim 6/5/14 Kim 6/5/14

Rising Interest Rates

How might they affect investments, housing & retirees? How will Wall Street fare if interest rates climb back to historic norms? Rising interest rates could certainly impact investments, the real estate market and the overall economy – but their influence might not be as negative as some perceive.

Why are rates rising? You can cite three factors. The Federal Reserve is gradually reducing its monthly asset purchases. As that has happened, inflation expectations have grown, and perception can often become reality on Main Street and Wall Street. In addition, the economy has gained momentum, and interest rates tend to rise in better times.

The federal funds rate has been in the 0.0%-0.25% range since December 2008. Historically, it has averaged about 4%. It was at 4.25% when the recession hit in late 2007. Short-term fluctuations have also been the norm for the key interest rate. It was at 1.00% in June 2003 compared to 6.5% in May 2000. In December 1991, it was at 4.00% – but just 17 months earlier, it had been at 8.00%. Rates will rise, fall and rise again; what may happen as they rise?^1,2

The effect on investments. Last September, an investment strategist named Rob Brown wrote an article for Financial Advisor Magazine noting how well stocks have performed as rates rise. Brown studied the 30 economic expansions that have occurred in the United States since 1865 (excepting our current one). He pinpointed a 10-month window within each expansion that saw the greatest gains in interest rates (referencing then-current yields on the 10-year Treasury). The median return on the S&P 500 for all of these 10-month windows was 7.93% and the index returned positive in 80% of these 10-month periods. Looking at such 10-month windows since 1919, the S&P’s median return was even better at 11.50% – and the index gained in 81% of said intervals.³

Lastly, Brown looked at the S&P 500’s return in the 12-month periods ending on October 31, 1994 and May 31, 2004. In the first 12-month stretch, the interest rate on the 10-year note rose 2.38% to 7.81% while the S&P gained only 3.87%. Across the 12 months ending on May 31, 2004, however, the index rose 18.33% even as the 10-year Treasury yield rose 1.29% to 4.66%.³

The effect on the housing market. Do costlier mortgages discourage home sales? Recent data backs up that presumption. Existing home sales were up 1.3% for April, but that was the first monthly gain recorded by the National Association of Realtors for 2014. Year-over-year, the decline was 6.8%. On the other hand, when the economy improves the labor market typically improves as well, and more hiring means less unemployment. Unemployment is an impediment to home sales; lessen it, and more homes might move even as mortgages grow more expensive.⁴

When the economy is well, home prices have every reason to appreciate even if interest rates go up. NAR says the median sale price of an existing home rose 5.2% in the past year – not the double-digit appreciation seen in 2013, but not bad. Cash buyers don’t care about interest rates, and according to RealtyTrac, 43% of buyers in Q1 bought without mortgages.^4,5

Rates might not climb as fast as some think. Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley – whose voting in Fed policy meetings tends to correspond with that of Janet Yellen – thinks that the federal funds rate will stay below its historic average for some time. Why? In a May 20 speech, he noted three reasons. One, baby boomers are retiring, which implies less potential for economic growth across the next decade. Two, banks are asked to keep higher capital ratios these days, and that implies lower bank profits and less lending as more money is being held in reserves. Three, he believes households and businesses are still traumatized by the memory of the Great Recession. Many are reluctant to invest and spend, especially with college loan debt so endemic and the housing sector possibly cooling off.⁶

Emerging markets in particular may have been soothed by recent comments from Dudley and other Fed officials. They have seen less volatility this spring than in previous months, and the MSCI Emerging Markets index has outperformed the S&P 500 so far this year.²

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

1 - newyorkfed.org/markets/statistics/dlyrates/fedrate.html [5/22/14]

2 - reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/saft-on-wealth-idUSL1N0NZ1GM20140521 [5/21/14]

3 - fa-mag.com/news/what-happens-to-stocks-when-interest-rates-rise-15468.html [9/17/13]

4 - marketwatch.com/story/existing-home-sales-fastest-in-four-months-2014-05-22 [5/22/14]

5 - marketwatch.com/story/43-of-2014-home-buyers-paid-all-cash-2014-05-08 [5/8/14]

6 - money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/investing/fed-low-interest-rates-dudley/index.html [5/20/14]

Kim 4/9/14 Kim 4/9/14

The Retirement We Imagine, the Retirement We Live

Examining the potential differences between assumption & reality.

Financially, how might retirement differ from your expectations? To some degree, it will. Just as few weathercasters can accurately predict a month’s worth of temperatures and storms, few retirees find their financial futures playing out as precisely as they assumed.

As you approach or enter retirement, you may find that your spending and your exit from your career don’t quite match your expectations. You may be surprised by these developments, even pleasantly surprised by some of them.

Few retirees actually outlive their money. If this was truly a crisis, we would see federal and state governments and social services agencies addressing it relentlessly. The vast majority of retirees are wise about their savings and income: they don’t spend recklessly, and if they need to live on less at a certain point, they live on less. It isn’t an ideal choice, but it is a prudent one. Health crises can and do impoverish retirees and leave them dependent on Medicaid, but that tends to occur toward the very end of retirement rather than the start.

You may not need to retire on 70-80% of your end salary. This is a common guideline for new retirees, but according to some analysts, you may not need to withdraw that much for long.

In the initial phase of retirement, you will probably want to travel, explore new pursuits and hobbies and get around to some things you may have put on the back burner. So in the first few years away from work, you might spend roughly as much as you did before you retired. After that, you could spend less.

Bureau of Labor Statistics data is very revealing about this. JP Morgan Asset Management recently studied U.S. household spending and found that it peaks at age 48. The average U.S. household headed by people aged 65-74 spends only 63% as much as a household headed by people aged 55-64. Additionally, the average household headed by people 75 and older spends only 72% as much as the average household headed by people aged 65-74.¹

In the big picture, households run by those 75 and older typically spend about half as much per year as households headed by people in their late forties.¹

Further interesting analysis of BLS statistics and retirement spending patterns comes from David Blanchett, the head of retirement research at Morningstar Investment Management. He sees a correlation between career earnings and retirement spending, one contrary to many presumptions. Comparatively speaking, he notes that higher-earning retirees commonly have to replace less of their income once their careers conclude. As he commented to Money Magazine, “the household that makes $40,000 a year might have an 85% replacement rate, and the household making $100,000 a year might need 60%.”²

Why, exactly? The upper-income household is watching its costs fall away in retirement. The home loan, the private school tuition, dining out due to convenience, the professional wardrobe, the car payment, the workplace retirement plan contribution – this is where the money goes. When these costs are reduced or absent, you spend less to live. Blanchett believes that the whole 70-80% guideline may “overestimate the true cost of retirement for many people by as much as 20%.”²

Your annual withdrawal rate could vary notably. Anything from healthcare expenses to a dream vacation to a new entrepreneurial venture could affect it. So could the performance of the stock or bond market.

You could retire before you anticipate. You may want to work well into your sixties or beyond – and the longer you wait to claim Social Security benefits after age 62, the greater your monthly payout. Reality, on the other hand, shows that most people don’t retire at age 66, 67 or 70: according to Gallup, the average retirement age in this country is 61. The aforementioned JP Morgan Asset Management study determined that less than 2% of Americans wait until age 70 to claim Social Security benefits. So if your assumption is that you will work to full retirement age (or later), you should keep in mind that you may find yourself electing to claim Social Security earlier, if only to avert drawing down your retirement savings too quickly.¹

You don’t have to be a millionaire to have a happy retirement. In a 2011 Consumer Reports poll of U.S. retirees, 68% of respondents were “highly satisfied” with their lives irrespective of their financial standing. Backing that up, JP Morgan Asset Management found that retiree satisfaction increased only incrementally the more retirement spending surpassed $40,000 a year.¹

The retirement you live may be slightly different than the retirement you have imagined. Fortunately, retirement planning and retirement income strategies may be revised in response.

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

This material was prepared by MarketingLibrary.Net Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 - reuters.com/article/2014/03/12/us-column-stern-advice-idUSBREA2B1R020140312 [3/12/14]

2 - money.cnn.com/2014/02/26/retirement/retirement-spending.moneymag/index.html [2/26/14]

Kim 3/9/14 Kim 3/9/14

Hanging on Through the Turbulence

Patience & diversification matter in all manner of stock market climates.

Stocks rise, fall ... and rise again. Volatility certainly came back to Wall Street during the first several weeks of 2014 in the form of a 7.2% descent for the Dow Jones Industrial Average and a 5.9% retreat for the NASDAQ. The declines gave investors pause: was a correction underway? Would bulls be held back for 2014?¹

As it turned out, no. On February 27, the S&P 500 settled at a new all-time peak of 1,854.30, with dovish remarks from Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen providing lift. On the same market day, the DJIA closed at 16,272.71 and the NASDAQ at 4,318.93.²

Ups and downs are givens when you invest in equities. Still, the skid stocks took in 2008-09 has made everyone from millennials to members of the Greatest Generation anxious about any string of down days for the big indices. If the benchmarks lose a couple of percentage points in a week, or more in a month, headlines and news alerts emerge and encourage collective fears of a stock bubble.

Be patient; be prepared. We don’t really know what will happen tomorrow, and therefore we don’t really know what will happen on Wall Street tomorrow (though we can make educated guesses in both respects). Because of that, it is wise to diversify your portfolio across different asset classes and rebalance it from time to time.

Would you rather have a portfolio that might perform at least decently in varied stock market climates, or a mix of investments that only makes sense in a bull run? We recognize that diversification is wise, especially for the long run ... and yet, when things go really well or really poorly on the Street, impatience and anxiety readily lure us away from the age-old wisdom.

The S&P 500 rose 29.6% in 2013, 31.9% with dividends included. Rationally, investors realize that such phenomenal stock gains won’t happen every year. Even so, the temptation to go full-bore into U.S. stocks and stock funds was pretty strong at the end of 2013 ... comparable to the call to invest in gold or bear-market funds back in 2008-09.⁴

If an investor relied on impulse rather than diversification across these past few years, he or she might be poorer and/or awfully frustrated today. Gold is in a bear market now, and according to Morningstar, the average bear market fund has lost 33% annually since 2008. Stocks are firmly in a bull market now, but an investor hypothetically going “all in” on domestic stocks at the end of 2013 (i.e., buying high) would have faced a market decline early in 2014 and might have impatiently sold their shares.³

Strategies like dynamic asset allocation attempt to leverage better-performing sectors of the market while shifting portfolio assets away from underperforming sectors. Such tactical moves may lead to improved portfolio performance. Of course, the strategy also seeks to foster intelligent diversification across asset classes.

Dynamic asset allocation is a strategy best left to professionals, even teams of them. Most retail investors would be hard pressed to even attempt it, even at a basic level. This is why the buy-and-hold approach (buy low, sit back, ride it out, sell high years later) is so often suggested to those saving for retirement and other long-term objectives.

Hang on when turbulence affects the markets. Staying in the market can prove the right move even when the news seems cataclysmic – look at how stocks have rebounded, and hit new highs, since the precipitous fall the S&P took in the recession. Sticking with principles of diversification can prove wise in both challenging and record-setting markets.

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

Citations.

1 - marketwatch.com/story/the-markets-in-for-a-wild-but-clearly-bullish-ride-2014-02-27 [2/27/14]

2 - thestreet.com/story/marketstory.html [2/27/14]

3 - marketwatch.com/story/dont-try-to-time-the-market-2014-02-21 [2/21/14]

4 - tinyurl.com/k9ul3af [12/31/13]

Kim 2/25/14 Kim 2/25/14

Retire at 65 ... Or Not?

Your assets matter more than your age.

Isn’t 65 the traditional retirement age? Perhaps, but baby boomers are modifying the definition of a traditional retirement (if not redefining it altogether). The Social Security Administration has subtly revised its definition of the traditional retirement age as well.

If you glance at the SSA website, the “full” retirement age for Americans born from 1943-1954 is 66, and it is 67 for those born in 1960 and later. (The “full” retirement age increases gradually from 66 to 67 for those born during the years 1955-1959.)¹

When Social Security started, the national retirement age was set at 65. In 1940, a 21-year-old American man had a 54% chance of living another 44 years (according to the federal government’s actuarial estimates). By 1990, that chance had improved to 72%. For 21-year-old women, the probability of reaching age 65 increased from 61% to 84% in that same time frame. Americans also began living longer after 65. Increased longevity led to financial dilemmas for Social Security and the necessary redefinition of “traditional” retirement age.²

What do you lose by retiring at 65? The financial opportunity cost is considerable, and maybe greater than some baby boomers realize. If your full retirement age is 67, you’ll reduce your monthly Social Security income by around 13.3% if you start taking benefits at age 65. Moreover, for every year that you refrain from claiming Social Security until age 70, your Social Security benefits will rise by 8%.^1,3

In addition to trimming your long-term retirement benefits, you may also forfeit some salary. If you are still working at age 65, you might be at or near your peak earnings level, and if that is the case, Social Security income may pale in comparison.

Think of life after 65 as your “third act” that needs funding. Do you think of 65 as late middle age? It may be. As the SSA website notes, about 25% of today’s 65-year-olds should live to age 90. About 10% of them should reach age 95. Even if that doesn’t happen for you, you should know that the average 65-year-old today can expect to live into his or her mid-eighties.⁴

Let those statistics serve as a flashing red light, illuminating two new truths of seniority. The first truth: for many Americans, “retirement” will represent 10, 20 or even 30 years of activity and opportunities. The second truth: to stay active and pursue those opportunities, retirees will need 10, 20 or 30 years of financial stability.

Most Americans haven’t amassed the equivalent 10, 20 or 30 years of retirement savings. Many want to “stay in the game” a little longer: a 2013 Gallup poll found that 37% of Americans expect to retire after age 65, compared with 14% in 1995.⁵

How many Americans can work full-time until age 65? The bad news is that according to the same Gallup poll, the average retirement age in America is 61. The good news is that it was 57 in 1991. Assuming we keep living longer and healthier, it seems plausible that the average age of retirement might hit 65 – if not for the boomers, then for Gen Xers.⁵

Regardless of when baby boomers retire, growth investing will continue to have merit. Even moderate inflation erodes purchasing power over time, and its effects can be felt in less than a decade. Who knows: the portfolios held by 65- and 70-year-olds in 2035 might look more like the ones they hold now instead of those held by their parents generations before.

When should you retire? If that question is on your mind to any degree, consider an evaluation of your retirement readiness – a review of what you have, an estimation of what you need and a clear look at the possibilities before you. It should be time well spent.

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

Citations.

1 - ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm [2/20/14]

2 - ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html tml [2/20/14]

3 - money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2013/10/18/why-65-is-too-young-to-retire [10/18/13]

4 - ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.htm [2/20/14]

5 - money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2013/06/10/the-ideal-retirement-age [6/10/13]

Kim 2/3/14 Kim 2/3/14

The MyRA, the USARF & Cash Balance Plans

New & old concepts to address the retirement savings gap.

How many 401(k)s have more than $100k in them? According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), the average 401(k) balance at the end of 2012 was $63,929. Even with stocks rising last year, the average balance likely remains underwhelming.¹

Is this enough money to retire on? No – and this is only part of America’s retirement dilemma. There is inequity in retirement savings – some households have steadily contributed to retirement accounts, others have not. Additionally, IRAs, 401(k)s and 403(b)s can suffer when stocks plunge, with the most invested potentially having the most to lose.

There is no perfect retirement savings plan, and there probably never will be – but ideas are emerging to try and address these problems.

Will MyRAs help more workers save? Over 40% of Americans don’t have a chance to participate in tax-advantaged workplace retirement plans. Last week, President Obama authorized the Treasury to create a new retirement savings account for them – the MyRA.¹

Technically speaking, the MyRA is a Roth IRA with one savings option. After-tax dollars going into the account would be invested in a new type of federal savings bond. As the White House told NPR last week, a MyRA would offer the same variable rate of return as that of the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) Government Securities Investment Fund. From 2003-12, the TSP’s GSIF returned an average of 3.61% annually.^2,3

A Roth IRA with one savings option may not sound very exciting, but the MyRA isn’t about excitement. A MyRA would feature principal protection with tax-free growth. Employees who earn as much as $191,000 a year could invest in one, contributing as little as $5 per paycheck. The federal government would pay account fees for MyRA owners and hire an institutional investment manager to oversee the program.^1,4

A MyRA would act as a “starter” retirement account for hampered or reluctant savers: MyRA assets of $15,000 or more would be automatically rolled over into Roth IRAs.²

Analysts see three drawbacks to MyRAs. One, accountholders will apparently be able to withdraw their assets at any time. As IRA guru Ed Slott tells Reuters, workers would “have to look at it as a long-term savings account and not a slush fund” to get the most out of participating. Two, enrollment will be voluntary, and "if you don't have automatic enrollment, then not a lot of people are going to use it," cautions Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Three, the rate of return on a MyRA would be well under historical norms for stocks.^1,4

How about the USARF? Speaking of automatic enrollment, Sen. Tom Harkin (R-IA) proposes creating the USA Retirement Funds, a new private pension program. Workers would automatically defer 6% of their paychecks into these investment funds, which would be overseen by the federal government yet managed by independent trustees. Employees would be in unless they opted out. Employers wouldn’t be required to match employee contributions, and they wouldn’t shoulder any fiduciary liability for plan assets; they would simply deal with payroll deductions. Low-income participants could qualify for a "refundable savers credit" – the USARF would match as much as $2,000 of their annual contributions via direct deposit.⁵

A worker could contribute up to $10,000 annually to the USARF, with $5,500 in yearly catch-up contributions permitted for those 50 and older. Employers could optionally make per-employee contributions of up to $5,000 per year, but contributions could not vary per employee. The funds wouldn’t offer any principal protection for plan participants, but they would get a pension-like income for life, complete with survivor benefits and spousal protections. Defined benefits would only be reduced a maximum of 5% in a downturn.⁵

And how about the cash balance plan? A cash balance plan is a pooled retirement trust with characteristics of an old-school pension plan. The employer funds the plan and plan trustees make investment decisions instead of plan participants. The employer contributes X amount of dollars into each employee’s “account.” The contribution is based on X% of employee pay plus a fixed-interest crediting rate, usually around 4-5%. Assets tend to be conservatively invested, and annual contribution limits are age-weighted for shareholders – they can be much greater than those for 401(k)s. A retiree ends up with either a lump sum or lifelong income based upon their end salary. These plans are often combined with 401(k) profit-sharing plans.⁶

During the 2000s, the number of cash balance plans grew by about 20% a year – and the trade journal Pension & Investments thinks they will be as common as 401(k)s in the coming years.⁶

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

This material was prepared by MarketingLibrary.Net Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 - latimes.com/business/la-fi-obama-myra-20140130,0,1409442.story#axzz2ruxl6bgF [1/29/14]

2 - consumeraffairs.com/news/obamas-no-risk-retirement-savings-plan-is-it-for-you-012914.html [1/29/14]

3 - tinyurl.com/ly7xf7p [1/29/14]

4 - tinyurl.com/n42cc2l [1/29/14]

5 - usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/30/harkin-retirement-bill/5051887/ [1/30/14]

6 - marketwatch.com/story/could-this-retirement-plan-replace-the-401k-2013-05-03 [5/3/13]

Kim 9/23/13 Kim 9/23/13

Financial Considerations for 2014

What changes should we consider making for next year?

2014 is really not too far away. Fall is the time of year when the financially savvy start to look for ways to reduce their taxes and make year-end moves in pursuit of key financial objectives.

What might the big picture hold? Absent a crystal ball, let’s turn to the September edition of the Wall Street Journal’s Economic Forecasting Survey. The WSJ asks 52 economists for their take on things each month, and here is how they see 2014 shaping up for America: GDP of 2.8%, a jobless rate declining from the present 7.3% to 6.6% by the end of next year and consumer inflation of 2.5% or less through the end of 2015. These analysts also see the Federal Reserve keeping the benchmark interest rate at 0-0.25% for all of 2014. As for the yield on the 10-year note, their consensus projection has it hitting 3.28% in June 2014 and 3.57% in December 2014. They also see home prices rising 5.22% YOY in 2014 after a 7.85% gain across 2013. Oil, they think, will average $102.73 a barrel on the NYMEX this December, declining to $98.17 a barrel next December. For its part, the International Monetary Fund projects 3.8% inflation-adjusted global growth next year, and a 4.3% tumble for global non-fuel commodities in U.S. dollar terms. These are all macro forecasts worth keeping in mind.^1,2

Now, how about your picture? Beyond these macro forecasts that may affect your business and personal finances, what moves might you consider?

Can you max out your IRA or workplace retirement plan contribution? If you have, congratulations (especially if you benefit further from an employer match). If you haven’t, you still have the chance to put up to $5,500 into a traditional or Roth IRA for tax year 2013, $6,500 if you are 50 or older this year, assuming your income levels allow you to do so. (Or you can spread that maximum contribution across more than one IRA.) Traditional IRA contributions are tax-deductible to varying degree. The contribution limit for participants in 401(k), 403(b) and most 457 plans and the Thrift Savings Plan is $17,500 for 2013, with a $5,500 catch-up contribution allowed for those 50 and older.^3,4

Incidentally, the FY 2014 federal budget set out by the White House proposes some changes to IRAs & 401(k)-style plans in 2014. First, if an individual’s total tax-deferred retirement savings through these plans is great enough to produce yearly retirement income of $205,000 for the individual and his/her surviving spouse, then further contributions to such accounts would be nixed. (Today, it would take savings of nearly $3.5 million to produce such a retirement income stream.) Second, the Stretch IRA strategy would basically vanish: the FY 2014 budget proposes that all IRA inheritors follow the 5-year rule, in which an inherited IRA balance is reduced to zero by the end of the fifth year after the year in which the original IRA owner dies. (Disabled IRA inheritors and certain other beneficiaries would be exempt from the 5-year rule.)⁵

Should you go Roth in 2014? The younger you are, the more sense a Roth IRA conversion may make. If you have a long time horizon to let your IRA grow, have the funds to pay the tax on the conversion, and want your heirs to inherit tax-free distributions from your IRA, it may be worth it. If you think you will pay less tax in the future or you might die with a large charitable bequest, then it may not be a wise move.

Can you harvest portfolio losses before 2014? This is the time of year to think about tax loss harvesting – dumping the losers in your portfolio. You can claim losses equivalent to any capital gains recognized in a tax year, and you can claim up to $3,000 in additional losses beyond that, which can offset dividend, interest and wage income. If your losses exceed that limit, they can be carried over into future years. It is a good idea to do this before December, as that will give you the necessary 30 days to repurchase any shares should you wish.⁶

In terms of taxes, should you delay a big financial move until 2014? Talk with a tax professional about the impact that selling or buying a home or business might have on your 2013 taxes. You may want to wait. Receiving a bonus, getting married or divorced, exercising a stock option, taking a lump-sum payout – these events have potentially major tax consequences as well. Business owners may want to consider whether to make a capital purchase or not.

Look at tax efficiency in your portfolio. Investors were strongly cautioned to do this at the end of 2012 as the fiscal cliff loomed; it is a good idea before any year ebbs into the next. You may want to put income-producing investments inside an IRA, for example, and direct investments with lesser tax implications into brokerage accounts.

Finally, do you need to change your withholding status? If major change has come to your personal or financial life, it might be time. If you have married or divorced, if a family member has passed away, if you are self-employed now or have landed a much higher-salaried job, or if you either pay a lot of tax or get unusually large IRS or state refunds, you will want to review this with your tax preparer.

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

Citations.

1 - online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash08.html?project=EFORECAST07 [9/12/13]

2 - forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2013/09/02/economic-assumptions-for-your-2014-business-plan/ [9/2/13]

3 - irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits/ [9/12/13]

4 - shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/articles/pages/2013-irs-401k-contribution-limits.aspx [10/19/12]

5 - blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2013/09/09/budget-talks-could-alter-401k-ira-rules/ [9/9/13]

6 - dailyfinance.com/2013/09/09/tax-loss-selling-dont-wait-december-dump-losers/ [9/9/13]

Kim 7/8/13 Kim 7/8/13

Retirement Seen Through Your Eyes

After you leave work, what will your life look like?

How do you picture your future? If you are like many baby boomers, your view of retirement is likely pragmatic compared to that of your parents. That doesn’t mean you have to have a “plain vanilla” tomorrow. Even if your retirement savings are not as great as you would prefer, you still have great potential to design the life you want.

With that in mind, here are some things to think about.

What do you absolutely need to accomplish? If you could only get four or five things done in retirement, what would they be? Answering this question might lead you to compile a “short list” of life goals, and while they may have nothing to do with money, the financial decisions you make may be integral to achieving them. (This may be the most exciting aspect of retirement planning.)

What would revitalize you? Some people retire with no particular goals at all, and others retire burnt out. After weeks or months of respite, ambition inevitably returns. They start to think about what pursuits or adventures they could embark on to make these years special. Others have known for decades what dreams they will follow ... and yet, when the time to follow them arrives, those dreams may unfold differently than anticipated and may even be supplanted by new ones.

In retirement, time is really your most valuable asset. With more free time and opportunity for reflection, you might find your old dreams giving way to new ones. You may find yourself called to volunteer as never before, or motivated to work again but in a new context.

Who should you share your time with? Here is another profound choice you get to make in retirement. The quick answer to this question for many retirees would be “family”. Today, we have nuclear families, blended families, extended families; some people think of their friends or their employees as family. You may define it as you wish and allocate more or less of your time to your family as you wish (some people do want less family time when they retire).

Regardless of how you define “family” or whether or not you want more “family time” in retirement, you probably don’t want to spend your time around “dream stealers”. They do exist. If you have a grand dream in mind for retirement, you may meet people who try to thwart it and urge you not to pursue it. (Hopefully, they are not in close proximity to you.) Reducing their psychological impact on your retirement may increase your happiness.

How much will you spend? We can’t control all retirement expenses, but we can control some of them. The thought of downsizing may have crossed your mind. While only about 10% of people older than 60 sell homes and move following retirement, it can potentially bring you a substantial lump sum or lead to smaller mortgage payments. You could also lose one or more cars (and the insurance that goes with them) and live in a neighborhood with extensive, efficient public transit. Ditching land lines and premium cable TV (or maybe all cable TV) can bring more savings. Garage sales and donations can have financial benefits as well as helping you get rid of clutter, with either cash or a federal tax deduction that may be as great as 30-50% of your adjusted gross income provided you carefully itemize and donate the goods to a 501(c)(3) non-profit.¹

Could you leave a legacy? Many of us would like to give our kids or grandkids a good start in life, or help charities or schools – but given the economic realities of retiring today, there is no shame in putting your priorities first.

Consider a baby boomer couple with, for example, $285,000 in retirement savings. If that couple follows the 4% rule, the old maxim that you should withdraw about 4% of your retirement savings per year, subsequently adjusted for inflation – then you are talking about $11,400 withdrawn to start. When you combine that $11,400 with Social Security and assorted investment income, that couple isn’t exactly rich. Sustaining and enhancing income becomes the priority, and legacy planning may have to take a backseat. In Merrill Lynch’s 2012 Affluent Insights Survey, just 26% of households polled (all with investable assets of $250,000 or more) felt assured that they could leave their children an inheritance; not too surprising given what the economy and the stock market have been through these past several years.²

How are you planning for retirement? This is the most important question of all. If you feel you need to prepare more for the future or reexamine your existing plan in light of changes in your life, then confer with a financial professional experienced in retirement planning.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600.

The material was prepared by MarketingLibrary.Net Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 – www.bankrate.com/finance/financial-literacy/ways-to-downsize-during-retirement.aspx [2/28/13]

2 – wealthmanagement.ml.com/Publish/Content/application/pdf/GWMOL/Report_ML-Affluent-Insights-Survey_0912.pdf [9/12]

Kim 4/29/13 Kim 4/29/13

Reassessing Retirement Assumptions

What makes financial sense for some baby boomers may not make sense for you.

There is no “typical” retirement. Many baby boomers want one and believe that they will have one, and their futures may indeed unfold as planned. For others, the story will be different. Just as there is no routine retirement, there are no rote financial moves that should be made before or during this phase of life, and no universal truths about the retirement experience.

Here are some commonly held assumptions – suppositions that may or may not prove true for you, depending on your financial and lifestyle circumstances.

#1. You should take Social Security as late as possible. Generally speaking, this is a smart move. If you were born in the years from 1943-1954, your monthly benefit will be 25% smaller if you claim Social Security at 62 instead of your “full” retirement age of 66. If you wait until 70 to take Social Security, your monthly benefit will be 32% larger than if you had taken it at 66.¹

So why would anyone apply for Social Security benefits in their early 60s? The fact is, some seniors really need the income now. Some have health issues or the prospect of hereditary diseases influencing their choice. Single retirees don’t have a second, spousal income to count on, and that is another factor in the decision. For most people, waiting longer implies a larger lifetime payout from America’s retirement trust. Not everyone can bank on longevity or relative affluence, however.

#2. You’ll probably live 15-20 years after you retire. You may live much longer, especially if you are a woman. According to the Census Bureau, the population of Americans 100 or older grew 65.8% between 1980 and 2010, and 82.8% of centenarians were women in 2010. The real eye-opener: in 2010, slightly more than a third of America’s centenarians lived alone in their own homes. Had their retirement expenses lessened with time? Doubtful to say the least.²

#3. You should step back from growth investing as you get older. As many investors age, they shift portfolio assets into investment vehicles that offer less risk than stocks and stock funds. This is a well-regarded, long-established tenet of asset allocation. Does it apply for everyone? No. Some retirees may need to invest for growth well into their 60s or 70s because their retirement savings are meager. There are retirement planners who actually favor aggressive growth investing for life, arguing that the rewards outweigh the risks at any age.

#4. The way most people invest is the way you should invest. Again, just as there is no typical retirement, there is no typical asset allocation strategy or investment that works for everyone. Your time horizon, your risk tolerance, and your current retirement nest egg represent just three of the variables to consider when you evaluate whether you should or should not enter into a particular investment.

#5. Going Roth is a no-brainer. Not necessarily. If you are mulling a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k) conversion, the big question is whether the tax savings in the end will be worth the tax you will pay on the conversion today. The younger you are – roughly speaking – the greater the possibility the answer will be “yes”, as your highest-earning years are likely in the future. If you are older and at or near your peak earning potential, the conversion may not be worth it at all.

#6. A lump sum payout represents a good deal. Some corporations are offering current and/or former workers a choice of receiving pension plan assets in a lump sum payout instead of periodic payments. They aren’t doing this out of generosity; they are doing it because actuaries have advised them to lessen their retirement obligations to loyal employees. For many pension plan participants, electing not to take the lump sum and sticking with the lifelong periodic payments may make more sense in the long run. The question is, can the retiree invest the lump sum in such a way that might produce more money over the long run, or not? The lump sum payout does offer liquidity and flexibility that the periodic payments don’t, but there are few things as economically reassuring as predictable, recurring retirement income. Longevity is another factor in this decision.

#7. Living it up in your 60s won’t hurt you in your 80s. Some couples withdraw much more than they should from their savings in the early years of retirement. After a few years, they notice a drawdown happening – their portfolio isn’t returning enough to replenish their retirement nest egg, and so the fear of outliving their money grows. This is a good argument for living beneath your means while still carefully planning and budgeting some “epic adventures” along the way.

Your retirement plan should be created and periodically revised with an understanding of the unique circumstances of your life and your unique financial objectives. There is no such thing as generic retirement planning, and that is because none of us will have generic retirements.

Kim Bolker may be reached at 616-942-8600 or kbolker@sigmarep.com

Citations.

1 - www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/02/15/the-big-decision-when-to-take-social-security/ [2/15/11]

2 - money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2013/01/07/what-people-who-live-to-100-have-in-common [1/7/13]

Kim 2/4/13 Kim 2/4/13

Building An Emergency Fund

Creating a financial cushion for stressful times.

How would you respond to sudden financial demands? We all define “emergencies” differently, but we are not immune to them. How can we plan to stay afloat financially when they occur?

Most households are not financially prepared for an emergency – not even close. A recent study from the National Foundation for Credit Counseling found that 64% of Americans had less than $1,000 in funds earmarked for a crisis.¹

While the recession did its part to siphon emergency funds from families, attention must be paid to rebuilding those funds. It may be difficult; it may be inconvenient. That doesn’t make it any less of a priority.

Emergencies tend to be linked to long-term debt. Having a designated emergency fund can help you attack that debt. When most people think of financial emergencies, they think of medical problems and burdensome costs that their insurance won’t fully absorb – but there are other paths to long-term debt, such as a sudden layoff, a natural disaster, a family issue with financial underpinnings or even an abrupt need to move to another metro area, for whatever reason.

How large should the fund be? You decide. An old rule of thumb is six months of net income or six months of expenses. If you are snickering or laughing out loud at your chances of saving that much, you aren’t alone. If your prospects of building a five-figure emergency fund seem remote, try to create one equivalent to two or three months of net income. Any amount is better than none.

How do you do it without hurting your standard of living? Few of us have a lump sum we can just reassign for emergencies. So consider these subtle savings opportunities.

> You could pay cash whenever possible, opening the door to incremental savings that credit card companies would otherwise take from you. A few dozen bucks can become a few hundred bucks, then a few thousand bucks over time. Incidentally, in a nationwide survey conducted by Chase Blueprint and LearnVest, 31% of people polled cited credit card debt as a major barrier to achieving financial objectives. The credit card debt carried by this 31% averaged about $5,000. Clearly, living on credit cards will thwart your effort to build a rainy day fund.²

> You could vow not to spend frivolously, thereby retaining money you might be tempted to throw away on impulse.

> You could sell stuff – stuff somebody else, maybe down the street or across the country, might want. Incidental shipping and handling costs could seem irrelevant next to the cash you generate.

> You could arrange direct deposit or start a seasonal savings account. The psychology behind both moves is simple: you are less likely to spend money if it doesn’t pass through your wallet.

Here’s how not to do it. Try to avoid building a crisis fund through self-defeating methods. For example:

> Don’t start an emergency fund with a loan. Do it with your own accumulated savings, bonus money from your job performance, royalties – whatever the origin, use money you have made or and/or saved yourself, not money you have borrowed from lenders or relatives.

> Don’t do it using payday loans or cash advances. High-interest short-term loans and cash advances on credit cards are often pitched as rescues to struggling households. Thanks to their absurd interest rates, payday loans are not financial “life rafts” by any means. Cash advances on credit and debit cards come with disproportionately high fees. Sadly, people who go in for these loans and advances once commonly go in for them again.

> Don’t refrain from paying certain bills. Let’s say that you have eight debts you have to pay per month. If you only pay three of them each month and carefully alternate which debts get paid down, can you create an emergency fund with the money you avoid paying? Well, yes – but you may imperil your credit rating in the process.

If you don’t have a designated emergency fund, you can build it up in the same way that you probably invest: a little at a time, with relatively little impact on your lifestyle. It can be done. It should be done.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600. This material was prepared by MarketingLibrary.Net Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 – www.learnvest.com/knowledge-center/5-ways-to-start-an-emergency-fund/ [8/14/12]

2 – www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/11/01/seven-reasons-why-need-to-create-emergency-fund-now/ [11/1/12]

Kim 1/22/13 Kim 1/22/13

IRA CONTRIBUTION LIMITS RISE FOR 2013

Save a little more for retirement.

Time to boost your IRA balance. In 2013, you can contribute up to $5,500 to your Roth or traditional IRA. If you will be 50 or older by the end of 2013, your contribution limit is actually $6,500 this year thanks to the IRS’s “catch-up” provision. The new limits represent a $500 increase from 2012 levels.¹

January is an ideal time to max out your annual IRA contribution. If you are in the habit of making a single annual contribution to your IRA rather than monthly or quarterly contributions, try to make the maximum contribution as early as you can in a year. More of your money should have an opportunity for tax-deferred growth, not less. While you can delay making your 2013 IRA contribution until April 15, 2014, there is no advantage in waiting – you will stunt the compounding potential of those assets, and time is your friend here.²

Do you own multiple IRAs? If you do, remember that your total IRA contributions for 2013 cannot exceed the relevant $5,500/$6,500 contribution limit.³

Your IRA contribution may be tax-deductible. Are you a single filer or a head of household? If you contribute to both a workplace retirement plan and a traditional IRA in 2013, you will be able to deduct the full amount of your IRA contribution if your modified adjusted gross income is $59,000 or less. A partial deduction is available to such filers with MAGI between $59,001-69,000.⁴

The 2013 phase-outs are higher for married couples filing jointly. If the spouse making the IRA contribution also participates in a workplace retirement plan, the traditional IRA contribution is fully deductible if the couple’s MAGI is $95,000 or less. A partial deduction is available if the couple’s MAGI is between $95,001-115,000.⁴

If the spouse making a 2013 IRA contribution doesn’t participate in a workplace retirement plan but the other spouse does, the IRA contribution may be wholly deducted if the couple's MAGI is $178,000 or less. A partial deduction can be had if the couple’s MAGI is between $178,001-188,000. (The formula for calculating reduced IRA contribution amounts is found IRS Publication 590.)⁵

You cannot contribute to a traditional IRA in the year in which you turn 70½ or in subsequent years. You can contribute to a Roth IRA at any age, assuming your income permits it.¹

What are the income caps on Roth IRA contributions this year? Single filers and heads of household can make a full Roth IRA contribution for 2013 if their MAGI is less than $112,000; the phase-out range is from $112,000-127,000. For joint filers, the MAGI phase-out occurs at $178,000-188,000 in 2013; couples with MAGI of less than $178,000 can make a full contribution. (To figure reduced contribution amounts, see Publication 590.) Those who can’t contribute to a Roth IRA due to income limits do have the option of converting a traditional IRA to a Roth.⁷

As a reminder, Roth IRA contributions aren’t tax-deductible – that is the price you pay today for the possibility of tax-free IRA withdrawals tomorrow.⁸

Can you put money in an IRA even if you don’t work? There is a provision for that. Generally speaking, you need to have taxable earned income to make a Roth or traditional IRA contribution. The IRS defines taxable earned income as...

*Wages, salaries and tips.

*Union strike benefits.

*Long-term disability benefits received before minimum retirement age.

*Net earnings resulting from self-employment.

Also, you can’t put more in your IRA(s) than you earn in a given year. (For example, if you are 25 and your taxable earned income for 2013 amounts to $2,592, your IRA contributions for this year can’t exceed $2,592.)⁹

However, a spousal IRA can be created to let a working spouse contribute to a nonworking spouse's retirement savings. That working spouse can make up to the maximum IRA contribution on behalf of the stay-at-home spouse (which does not affect the working spouse’s ability to contribute to his or her own IRA).

Married couples who file jointly can do this. The IRS rule is that you can contribute the maximum into this IRA for each spouse as long as the working spouse has income equal to both contributions. So if both spouses will be older than 50 at the end of 2013, the working spouse would have to earn taxable income of $13,000 or more to make two maximum IRA contributions ($12,000 if only one spouse is age 50 or older at the end of 2013, $11,000 if both spouses will be younger than 50 at the end of the year).^6,9

So, to sum up ... make your 2013 IRA contribution as soon as you can, the larger the better.

Kim Bolker may be reached at kbolker@sigmarep.com or 616-942-8600. This material was prepared by MarketingLibrary.Net Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. Marketing Library.Net Inc. is not affiliated with any broker or brokerage firm that may be providing this information to you. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. Please note - investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is not a solicitation or a recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 – www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits [11/28/12]

2 – finance.zacks.com/can-ira-contribution-carried-forward-5388.html [1/9/12]

3 – helpdesk.blogs.money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/can-i-contribute-more-than-5000-to-multiple-iras/ [6/6/12]

4 – www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/2013-IRA-Deduction-Limits-Effect-of-Modified-AGI-on-Deduction-if-You-Are-Covered-by-a-Retirement-Plan-at-Work [11/26/12]

5 – www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/2013-IRA-Deduction-Limits-Effect-of-Modified-AGI-on-Deduction-if-You-Are-NOT-Covered-by-a-Retirement-Plan-at-Work [11/26/12]

6 - www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html#en_US_2011_publink10002304123 [2011]

7 - www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Amount-of-Roth-IRA-Contributions-That-You-Can-Make-For-2013 [11/27/12]

8 - www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc309.html [12/17/12]

9 - www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/business-and-finance/money-and-you/can-you-contribute-to-an-ira-if-you-don-t-have-a-job.html [2011]

Tell Your Beneficiaries About Your Accounts and Policies

White House Proposes Changes to Retirement Plans

You Could Retire...But Should You?

Are Your Kids Delaying Your Retirement?

The Difference Between Good & Bad Debt

Are You Underprepared for Retirement?

Reining in Your Debt

Will Baby Boomers Ever Truly Retire?

Are Americans Growing More Optimistic About Retiring?

Less Protection for Inherited IRAs

Rising Interest Rates

The Retirement We Imagine, the Retirement We Live

Hanging on Through the Turbulence

Retire at 65 ... Or Not?

The MyRA, the USARF & Cash Balance Plans

Financial Considerations for 2014

Retirement Seen Through Your Eyes

Reassessing Retirement Assumptions

Building An Emergency Fund

IRA CONTRIBUTION LIMITS RISE FOR 2013

Contact

Securities and Advisory Services